October Term 2015 · Docket 15-474

Does an official act require a specific government decision?

The dispute centers on whether arranging meetings counts as an official act under federal bribery law.

Official caption
McDonnell v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Dreeben asserted that the crime involved accepting value to promote research studies.

    Mr. Francisco argued that the government ignores a prior Supreme Court decision.

    Mr. Francisco stated that the quid pro quo requirement solves many of the government's problems.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the federal bribery statute. It asks if a public official commits a crime by merely arranging access to government agencies. the side that brought the case argues this conduct is not an official act. The government argues it is.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 27, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants a categorical carve-out for meetings and phone calls.

The government wants the court to treat arranging research studies as an official act.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that providing access to the government is not an official act.

The government argues that anything within official duties constitutes an official act.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked how to handle the perception that the official tried to influence others.

Justice Ginsburg asked if the outcome would change if medical faculties agreed to testing.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between lawful advocacy and criminal bribery. It determines whether arranging meetings constitutes a specific government action. This standard affects all public officials nationwide. It shapes the legal definition of official conduct.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON